The gyroscope, overall thinness of the device, and using the casing as the antenna, it all seems to be what sets this phone apart, but the way Jobs described this thing talking about how nothing on the market comes close, that's laughable.

Look, it's got all the latest and greatest (like a high res screen, 720 HD video recording, a front facing camera) but the evo can be directly compared to this thing.

It really irritates me when someone like Jobs or Ballmer acts like people don't know what else is on the market when they say there's nothing like their product.

...

It's just as irritating (IMO of course), to have folks like you try to knock the thing down by implying that there is "nothing new" though.

It can be compared to other phones sure, but it mostly blows them away on every point. The screen is the highest resolution screen you can get on a mobile, period. The 720p video recording is better than you'd find on any other phone, etc. etc.

If a product really is better than the rest (and we know it won't be that way forever), taking the opportunity to say "ours is the best," is the only honest way to frame things IMO.

What do you expect Steve Jobs to say? Is he supposed to come out and go "Well, all phones have this stuff in them, ours is a bit better than the rest, but hey, make up your own mind." And then walk off?

I teach vision science in a major California, university, the claims about this display are patently false.

First, I'll overlook the claim about what the human retina can display, that's just wrong. The retina doesn't display anything, it's not a projector. Rather, it is an information gather device that has light projected on to it. It's nothing like a display at all. And, even if SJ meant display as in a projection screen, which is only partially correct, it doesn't change facts about the acuity of human visual perception.

The human retina is actually capable of picking up details finer than the width of a human photoreceptor itself. This is sometimes measured with what's called vernier acuity, the ability to detect if two lines are offset from one another.

Further, there are literally BILLIONS of receptors in the retina, with MILLIONS in a linear inch. There is no way a display of 326 ppi is higher resolution than the millions of receptors in a linear inch in the retina.

I'm very saddened to see this misrepresentation of the capabilities of the display in the new iPhone. It will only give the trolls food.

412MHz ARM11 to a 600MHz Cortex A8 was noticeable improvement. Going from Cortex A8 to idealized Cortex A8 as an A4, even at the same speed would show a noticeable improvement if the OS was designed for the HW, which we know it is. I speculate that it's likely around 800MHz and very fast.

Even with the battery increases and these times besting real world use of other smartphones I would like to see these times at least doubled. I can't stand how battery tech seemingly moves so slowly compared to the rest of the industry.

Apple does their own battery technologies. You can have long-charge batteries, you can have thin batteries and you can have long-life batteries, but you have to, by basic chemical processes, balance those needs for your form-factor. Now, given all the advances they are making in hydrogen and nuclear technologies, in a couple of years you may find a whole different power system onboard your mobile devices - imagine a micro-tokamac or micro-hyperion nuclear power system. Or one of the new Toshiba or Angstrom prototype fuel cells. So battery life may well become another technology anachronism within the decade.

The Jobster said "tell us where you want to put the ad, and we'll do it" or something similar. But here's a question for you delevopers out there - can the iAds load location information? IOW, can an advertizer buy an ad that only displays in certain geographical locations?

I agree he did use a bit of hyperbole. But he was talking about the number of pixels vs perception of sharpness at a given distance. Which is really a lot more involved that only the retina itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bowser

Further, there are literally BILLIONS of receptors in the retina, with MILLIONS in a linear inch. There is no way a display of 326 ppi is higher resolution than the millions of receptors in a linear inch in the retina.

I'm very saddened to see this misrepresentation of the capabilities of the display in the new iPhone. It will only give the trolls food.

I teach vision science in a major California, university, the claims about this display are patently false.

First, I'll overlook the claim about what the human retina can display, that's just wrong. The retina doesn't display anything, it's not a projector. Rather, it is an information gather device that has light projected on to it. It's nothing like a display at all. And, even if SJ meant display as in a projection screen, which is only partially correct, it doesn't change facts about the acuity of human visual perception.

The human retina is actually capable of picking up details finer than the width of a human photoreceptor itself. This is sometimes measured with what's called vernier acuity, the ability to detect if two lines are offset from one another.

Further, there are literally BILLIONS of receptors in the retina, with MILLIONS in a linear inch. There is no way a display of 326 ppi is higher resolution than the millions of receptors in a linear inch in the retina.

I'm very saddened to see this misrepresentation of the capabilities of the display in the new iPhone. It will only give the trolls food.

For someone who claims to teach this stuff, it honestly saddens me that you've tried to equate the cell density of the retina with the density of a display device held 10 to 12 inches away. Your nitpicking assumes you smashed the display up against your retina (of course, then you couldn't actually see the whole display). Your vision really does lose "resolution" the farther away an object is. Otherwise, we'd all be able to see the stripes on the American flag on the Moon.

Maybe you'd like to source some research that says the retina can pick out detail higher than 326 ppi at 10 inches away before making nonsensical arguments.

I'm pretty happy with iPhone 4. My only disappointment is the fact that they didn't bump up the memory to 64GB. Given the expense of flash memory and the space allotted to the battery, I can understand why.

I wonder how that will impact announcements for the next touch in September -- can people safely assume that maximum capacity will stay at 64GB, but the unit will get the front facing and rear camera?

The keynote also mentions some new accessories for iPhone 4, but I haven't seen an images. Anyone got anything they can post?

I highly doubt it. I would assume they use a custom written control software. I think it is an embedded system from IBM.

Yeah I should have Googled it first. My recollection got confused with something else I read about computer systems in military vehicles. They do use 2 different custom OS. Apparently 4 computers run the same OS and the 5 runs an equivalent but completely different OS as a fail over.

412MHz ARM11 to a 600MHz Cortex A8 was noticeable improvement. Going from Cortex A8 to idealized Cortex A8 as an A4, even at the same speed would show a noticeable improvement if the OS was designed for the HW, which we know it is. I speculate that it's likely around 800MHz and very fast.

Even with the battery increases and these times besting real world use of other smartphones I would like to see these times at least doubled. I can't stand how battery tech seemingly moves so slowly compared to the rest of the industry.

800MHz seems to be about right! That is a solid 200MHz over the current phone with a much faster memory subsystem. The other point is that the GPU is likely running much faster too. In fact I would have to say it has to run much faster than the GPU in the 3GS because it has to push so many more pixels.

Still it won't be any faster than it has to be to preserve battery life as much as possible.

In any event I'm really tempted to go this route instead of an iPad. I just can't justify right now both and the current iPhone has proven to be very handy indeed. This new unit should be a solid step up, the camera might even be useful to me.

For me, nothing compelling. Even the wireless N is only on 2.4GHz.
Shoot, how long has Apple been putting 5GHz in even their cheapest computers?
Kinda like not putting USB 3.0 on the 17" iMac I got my wife a few months ago.
Great PC, but hardly cutting edge features.

This makes me very happy with the purchase of two 3GS iPhones this weekend (with unlimited data plans) as AT&T stores offer 30 day price guarantee - so only $99 each!

The screen is actually bigger, too. I really don't need a cell phone screen I have to enlarge with a projector to tell the improvement.

I don't need to video conference (which AT&T will never allow over their 3G anyway).
Isn't that what the Macbooks are for?
Not bad to have, but no big deal ether.

And I wonder if the iMovie app won't work with the 3GS when upgraded to iOS 4?

It appears the the sole reason for maintaining the small screen (by today's smartphone standards) was simply to maintain the display's aspect ratio, which has been achieved, even if it does make the phone look a bit dated.

Can you buy the iOS 4 phone and not hook up with AT&T and then only use it on WiFi?
I know they would add mucho $ to the price. I like all the new features-5MP cam, HD video, etc. But, I don't need AT&T since my reception is bad anyway at my home.

Because there is such a thing as being respectful. Good god, what the hell is wrong with our society these days?

The other way to look at it is that Apples exclusive agreement with AT&T is disgraceful and they ned to be held accountable when and where ever possible. It is that old phrase " you made your bed now lay in it".

Unlike the landfill-destined Android phones, this iPhone is a seriously polished hardware/software combo. It works, and Apple's borderline-clinical attention to detail is what will continue to keep the iPhone the platinum-standard for everyone else to reach.

I'll take SJ's viewpoint of what the market is like anytime compared to your perception of it is.

And as usual, the rest of the competition is watching all the webcasts while their copy-machines are warming up. Why do any real R&D when they can get it for free from Apple?

Even with the iOS4 coming out, I'm willing to bet they already have an early prototype of iOS5 working deep in the caves of Apple Skunkwerks. They just bring shame to the competition.

To me, your last statement here is one of the understated advantages of the iPhone product line. Personally, when I do upgrade my iPhone 3GS I'll then feel pretty good about handing it down to my 4 year old to have as his one iPod Touch. I have a couple games on it now that he really loves, and then I wouldn't have to worry about him breaking it quite so much.

Yeah I should have Googled it first. My recollection got confused with something else I read about computer systems in military vehicles. They do use 2 different custom OS. Apparently 4 computers run the same OS and the 5 runs an equivalent but completely different OS as a fail over.

I think there was a new ship in the Navy that was going to use NT as the basis for its systems. So I don't fault you for thinking the shuttle may have use it.

In this particular case I don't have a problem with the outburst because he was delivering a message that needs to be heard. I'm grateful to this audience member as well as the guy at D8 who complained about his service in Texas. Maybe Mr. Jobs will get the message that there are some real issues with the network that one is forced to use if they want to enjoy the experience of having an iPhone.

There was a time right here on this forum when anyone claiming that AT&T's network was horrible and useless was called a troll and an outright liar. "I've had AT&T for years and I've never dropped a call. So if I have no problems, no one has any problems." That attitude has changed lately to "Ahh, I don't ever use my iPhone for phone calls anyway" So maybe some here finally got the message.

It's possible that this "were selling tons of iPhones so everything is alright" attitude existed in the corridors of Apple Inc as well. Maybe Steve Jobs doesn't travel in areas where there is no coverage. If he did, I bet he would do something about it.

So yes, it may be rude to have an outcry during a Keynote. But after three, going on four years of AT&T exclusivity, maybe it was time for someone to speak out.

Sure that is what I thought would happen for audio, I wondered how the integration with the cell service works.

You dial someone's number they say hello, you say, let's do a Facetime chat. Ok. Once the IP connection hands off does the cell service automatically drop and you continue with FT? It would be nice if it optionally could work without the cell service since many people have a really hard time receiving calls indoors at home.

I teach vision science in a major California, university, the claims about this display are patently false.

First, I'll overlook the claim about what the human retina can display, that's just wrong. The retina doesn't display anything, it's not a projector. Rather, it is an information gather device that has light projected on to it. It's nothing like a display at all. And, even if SJ meant display as in a projection screen, which is only partially correct, it doesn't change facts about the acuity of human visual perception.

The human retina is actually capable of picking up details finer than the width of a human photoreceptor itself. This is sometimes measured with what's called vernier acuity, the ability to detect if two lines are offset from one another.

Further, there are literally BILLIONS of receptors in the retina, with MILLIONS in a linear inch. There is no way a display of 326 ppi is higher resolution than the millions of receptors in a linear inch in the retina.

I'm very saddened to see this misrepresentation of the capabilities of the display in the new iPhone. It will only give the trolls food.

You're not right, professor!

It's all got to do with distance. As the other poster said a bit earlier, 326ppi at 10-12 inches is more than eyes can discern. That's why huge wall posters don't need to be printed at 300 dpi like 4x6 photos do.

I work in photography where a print standard is 300dpi so we make sure no pixel is visible but it is possible to go a bit lower and still have adequate quality. Having 326ppi is just great and even assuming you have those 3 subpixels per pixel, 109ish sppi is still incredible!

That's why the guys with the "lost/stolen" prototype couldn't distinguish the pixels in the USB synching logo on the screen...

As for the Retina Display claim, they probably mean it's something that can finally match the precision of your retina. I think these guys know the retina doesn't emit light...

I think those who have asked for a bigger iPhone screen, certainly want a bigger screen for A PHONE, which is pocketable, and so forth, so the answer iPad surely must be a misunderstandig of what these people/users (and I) would prefer, namely an iPhone with a 4 og 4,3 inches screen. Not too big or heavy, still pocketable, and much more use userfriendly both for eyesight in general and for many applications too.